What this really all boils down to is the credulous Christian (religious) mind-set of "we just have to know right now!" So, if scientists don't know something (or wherever there are gaps in human knowledge) they just fill it with their deity God thing instead of admitting ignorance until sufficient evidence comes in. And they do this because they have assumed (via hearsay) their bible is 'the Word of God'. It's really no different from what other religions do.

You can not find truth in something when the truth changes every day. Heck, maybe tomorrow evolution will be false and everyone will say "We got that wrong but trust us on the next theory!"

FACTS can not be FACTS if they are constantly changing. TRUTH doesn't change. TRUTH is TRUTH.

I've even heard that the Big Bang theory might be obsolete soon despite the so called mountains of evidence it had to support it.

If you guys can't agree on what a fact is, you can't expect anyone else to just blindly follow the world of scientists.

There are so many fallacies in your way of thinking; it's insane.

1. You do not "have the understanding...that God never changes". You ASSUME! You've assumed your theology in advance (b/c you assumed the bible as "the Word of God") instead of admitting when you are ignorant. Do you know what that is called? CREDULITY

2. Your attempt to shame science for being science is based upon your flawed black/white thinking that science makes statements which are absolute truth. WRONG! Science does not claim absolute certainty on any proposition. This is why we have scientific theories (which are the HIGHEST POINT of science). "Absolute truth" (whatever that means) is not known or asserted in science. So that is a red-herring. If you would only stop your gullibility and go do some homework you might start to understand this. Take some college courses in biology, geology, chemistry, etc. The things you are spewing here are based your own ignorance, and they are not new.

3. You have a delusion about what "facts" are - as if somehow we can't live our lives if our knowledge about the external world is not perfect. Welcome to earth and being a human-being! Our knowledge about the external world is changing as we learn more. This is why advancements in technology, medical science, and computers are always evolving (and improving!). Your expectation of 'absolute knowledge' is based in the faulty sermon you heard in church (and bought hook, line, and sinker). What you are displaying is intellectual laziness and gullibility - not knowledge.

4. No one here (or in the scientific community) is asking you to blindly follow anything. What's so ironic about your statement though is that the religion and theology you put your "faith" in is doing just that - praying upon your willingness to "just have faith" (aka - blindly follow no matter what - regardless of how irrational it is). Just listen to yourself - thinking it's OK for some deity to own you, slaughter children, rip fetuses from the womb, own other humans as property (slavery), torture his "loved" creation in fire forever, and violate his own rules/laws. You sound just like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, seriously. When you attempt to rationalize and justify the monstrous passages in that book you make yourself no different from any other gullible religious Muslim fool.

Study history a little more. You will find that religious people just as devout as you have used the same rationalizations and spin to justify believing in all sorts of killing. Do you know who the people were who thought the earth was flat, lightening and thunder came from Zeus, decease came from demons, woman were man's property, and African people were inferior savages? RELIGIOUS PEOPLE! Just like you. So don't shoot down science b/c of your gullibility and emotional attachment to your theology. Thousands of Christians accept evolution, as well as science. The use of logic, reason, and evidence is the single most reliable method we have for separating fact from fiction. It is what has brought you the very computer you are using right now. Just stop the nonsense and go study.

You can not find truth in something when the truth changes every day. Heck, maybe tomorrow evolution will be false and everyone will say "We got that wrong but trust us on the next theory!"

FACTS can not be FACTS if they are constantly changing. TRUTH doesn't change. TRUTH is TRUTH.

I've even heard that the Big Bang theory might be obsolete soon despite the so called mountains of evidence it had to support it.

If you guys can't agree on what a fact is, you can't expect anyone else to just blindly follow the world of scientists.

Skeptic, you never answered my question. Do you think the earth is flat or a sphere? Has science discovered this fact or not? Do you think science will be "constantly changing" the answer to this or your other examples again?

Your statement shows that you do not know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Scientific facts are the observations, measurements and data which are used as a basis for scientific theory.

Evolution is based both on facts and theory. Darwin had mostly facts when he published The origin of species. It was not until one hundred years later when DNA was discovered that the full theory could be attempted.

It is a sign of intellectual honesty to be able to change your mind. Skeptic, You have shown that you are incapable of changing your mind.

Basically you are saying that the gears evolved somehow. OK, that's a start.

Let's try and get to the meat and potatoes of this though.

Getting to the cornflakes will be easier for you to understand:

Quote

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?Creationist: Yes.Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes send to settle at the base of the box? Do you think it’s because God put them there?Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well? Why do the small flakes fall further?Creationist: I don’t know.Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps. The flakes sieve themselves. Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required. Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”. Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively. Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.Creationist: There must be more to it than that? There must be! There has to be!http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/Dr Robert Stovold

OK, that's how it works. It would take you years to arrange every cornflake in order of size... but it happens without you and without any mystic deity, doesn't it?

Tip out the bigger cornflakes and look at the little ones: marvel at the irreducible complexity of the thousands of little pieces, all perfectly sorted!

Why did God in his intelligence not design humans as efficiently as he has designed some animals?

I know right?Why do we have all these stupid useless organs and stuff?

Why did he make us able to die/feel pain.

Why the heck are we all mortal instead of super men/women?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

religions tend to diverge over time with new denominations or even whole new religions popping up because people disagree on smaller and smaller details of interpretation. Religion changes for the worse every day, getting further and further from each other.

Science works the opposite way, multiple hypotheses in disagreement are filtered by new evidence, better understanding of the evidence and newer, more acccurate tools for analyzing evidence. When a hypothesis is discarded it's because one that explains the evidence better replaced it. When einstein came up with relativity it didn't invalidate isaac newton's laws, it refined them. In fact, newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics got us to the moon and back just fine, but they don't quite explain enough to get GPS satellites woring right. That took general and special relativity.

There's little evidence that people thought the world was flat, anyone who had climed up a mountain or watched a ship sail away would see the curvature of the earth. The ancient greeks even managed to calculate the circumference to a high degree of accuracy.

One of tuing things you don't seem to get skep, is that not all wrongs are created equal. If you have two people and one says the earth is flat and the other says that it's a sphere, they are both wrong. But they are not equally wrong, the sphere is far closer to the fact that it's a distorted spheroid. Likewise, you have one group claiming that the earth is 6, 000 years old (or 10, 000, or less than a million, or not billions, religion can't seem to get their answer straight. ) and you have many fields of science concluding that it's around 4.5 billion years or so. If more accurate evidence points to it being a bit older it doesn't make the previous answer just as wrong as the young earth creationists

I suggest that in order to at least appear to understand what everyone is talking about you should head to talkorigins.org and read all of it. You'll always fail when you try to argue against something you don't understand. That's why so many of us here have read and studies multiple versions of the bible as well as other holy books. The winner isn't the one who understands their own position the best, it's the one who understands their opponent's position better than their opponent does.

If you want to really make any of us think, come up with an argument for creation that we haven't already heard. Otherwise, go study for a while and come back when you know the evidence well enough to refute it.

You'd think an intelligent designer would have given us the best of what the animals were given. We got a great brain that's a resource hog and opposable thumbs. Where's our second opposable thumb from the koala? The visual acuity of birds of prey? The color depth of the mantis shrimp? Vitamin C synthesis of all the other mammals save for the guinea pig? The strength of the other great apes? The running speed of the cheetah? The dolphin's ability to sleep using one half of the brain at a time? How about jetpacks and lasers? We're supposed to be God's favorites, created in his own image but our DNA only differs from chimps by less than 2%

Instead; we got bad backs, teeth we don't have room for, an organ that not only doesn't work but is likely to rupture and kill us, a brain that lies to us about what it sees and allows us to accept and rationalize information that isn't true, and tons of other evolutionary throwbacks. We are barely even us, our bodies are made up of more microbial cells of other species than our own cells. It's more like we're a vehicle for colonies of bacteria to get around in and use to build new colonies.

It's funny b/c none of these responses will make the creationist give up his/her view (usually). He/she just has too much to lose if it is decided to give it up and admit the arguments for a "designer" are irrational. Instead, every rationalization and spin tactic is used. I think the evolutionary reasons for this are quite significant. Belief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with many fears.

You'd think an intelligent designer would have given us the best of what the animals were given. We got a great brain that's a resource hog and opposable thumbs. Where's our second opposable thumb from the koala? The visual acuity of birds of prey? The color depth of the mantis shrimp? Vitamin C synthesis of all the other mammals save for the guinea pig? The strength of the other great apes? The running speed of the cheetah? The dolphin's ability to sleep using one half of the brain at a time? How about jetpacks and lasers? We're supposed to be God's favorites, created in his own image but our DNA only differs from chimps by less than 2%

Instead; we got bad backs, teeth we don't have room for, an organ that not only doesn't work but is likely to rupture and kill us, a brain that lies to us about what it sees and allows us to accept and rationalize information that isn't true, and tons of other evolutionary throwbacks. We are barely even us, our bodies are made up of more microbial cells of other species than our own cells. It's more like we're a vehicle for colonies of bacteria to get around in and use to build new colonies.

You fail to see the simplicity of it all.

Are we as fast as a cheetah? No but we can make cars.

Can we fly like birds? No but we can make planes.

Can we see like a hawk? No but we can make a telescope.

God has given us the ability to make these things just like the other species. That is remarkable.

Next time someone says, "I can't outrun a cheetah!" just laugh and throw him his car keys.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

It's funny b/c none of these responses will make the creationist give up his/her view (usually). He/she just has too much to lose if it is decided to give it up and admit the arguments for a "designer" are irrational. Instead, every rationalization and spin tactic is used. I think the evolutionary reasons for this are quite significant. Belief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with many fears.

Paul Kurtz' book speaks to this point.

I will now demonstrate how silly that argument is:

It's funny b/c none of these responses will make the atheist give up his/her view (usually). He/she just has too much to lose if it is decided to give it up and admit the arguments for a "designer" are rational and have to change their lifestyle 180 degrees. Instead, every rationalization and spin tactic is used. I think the evolutionary reasons for this are quite significant. Disbelief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with the fear of being responsible for your actions to the ultimate King of the universe.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

It's funny b/c none of these responses will make the atheist give up his/her view (usually). He/she just has too much to lose if it is decided to give it up and admit the arguments for a "designer" are rational and have to change their lifestyle 180 degrees. Instead, every rationalization and spin tactic is used. I think the evolutionary reasons for this are quite significant. Disbelief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with the fear of being responsible for your actions to the ultimate King of the universe.

You fail here miserably on many accounts, but I'm not surprised that you have (once again) attempted to miscategorize non-belief and misrepresent the positions of atheists, since you seem to have no problem bearing false witness all over the place for your alleged cause. Atheism is not a belief. It is not a worldview. It has no tenants, no claims, no dogmas. It is a single position on a single claim (that of disbelieving your claims to a "God" thing - what that is).

You cannot "give up" something you do not have!!!! And you are an outright lying asshole for continually trying to misrepresent the atheist position (that of a lack of belief). Anything else is NOT atheism! Belief is not a choice and disbelief is the default position for when there is insufficient evidence to support a claim. The burden of proof rests squarely upon YOU - and no one else.

Btw, being responsible for ones actions has nothing to do with an alleged deity and the burden of proof is still on you.

F- You didn't demonstrate anything except how dishonest and biased you are.

You fail here miserably on many accounts, but I'm not surprised that you have (once again) attempted to miscategorize non-belief and misrepresent the positions of atheists, since you seem to have no problem bearing false witness all over the place for your alleged cause. Atheism is not a belief. It is not a worldview. It has no tenants, no claims, no dogmas. It is a single position on a single claim (that of disbelieving your claims to a "God" thing - what that is).

You cannot "give up" something you do not have!!!! And you are an outright lying asshole for continually trying to misrepresent the atheist position (that of a lack of belief). Anything else is NOT atheism! Belief is not a choice and disbelief is the default position for when there is insufficient evidence to support a claim. The burden of proof rests squarely upon YOU - and no one else.

Btw, being responsible for ones actions has nothing to do with an alleged deity and the burden of proof is still on you.

F- You didn't demonstrate anything except how dishonest and biased you are.

In my view, I do not believe I am misrepresenting the position.I am sorry if you feel I am wrong.

BTW, what is your definition of "evidence?" Is it based purely on the empirical senses?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

It's funny b/c none of these responses will make the atheist give up his/her view (usually). He/she just has too much to lose if it is decided to give it up and admit the arguments for a "designer" are rational and have to change their lifestyle 180 degrees. Instead, every rationalization and spin tactic is used. I think the evolutionary reasons for this are quite significant. Disbelief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with the fear of being responsible for your actions to the ultimate King of the universe.

Yeah, well, Christianity has the vineyard parable, which says we can make a death-bed conversion.

What we find funny, is that you have not conceded a single point, even though you are wrong about nearly everything. You don't even sound like you are trying to see things from someone else's POV. Most of the atheists here have been Christians, so have no need to see any more of it. You, claiming you have been an atheist does not match, because dogs are atheists. It means nothing, whilst trying for a decade/s or so, to make sense of Christianity means a genuine attempt to see it from your POV.

Quote

Disbelief in a designer/God/afterlife helps people cope with the fear of being responsible for your actions to the ultimate King of the universe.

Again, you haven't seen anything from our POV. It may be that we ARE responsible to the King of the universe, by learning the violin. Your assumption that morality is what He wants, is based on Law, created by men. Humans want morality and law, to survive in civilization. God may want something entirely different.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

In my view, I do not believe I am misrepresenting the position.I am sorry if you feel I am wrong.

BTW, what is your definition of "evidence?" Is it based purely on the empirical senses?

You've been shown numerous times that you are misrepresenting the positions of non-believers in your deity thing. It's not surprising though that you have diluted yourself into thinking it's OK. Now let's test your claim. Answer each of these questions:

-What is all that is required in order to be an atheist (by OUR definition, not yours)?-Does atheism have a "view" on anything (i.e. - does it make any positive claims)? Yes or no.

If, in answering these questions, you do not properly represent OUR position (and not your mentality of it) then you are bearing false witness and untrustworthy.

God has given us the ability to make these things just like the other species. That is remarkable.

Next time someone says, "I can't outrun a cheetah!" just laugh and throw him his car keys.

That isn't even an answer. "We can't do X, but we can make Y which is better than X, therefore God". No, therefore humans happen to be inventive and good at making tools. It doesn't prove anything you're asserting, because you have no evidence to support it. You're like Phoenix Wright, making stuff up on the fly - except he and his fellow defense attorneys have real evidence which supports their assertions. All you have is blind assertion after blind assertion, and no evidence to speak of.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Yeah, well, Christianity has the vineyard parable, which says we can make a death-bed conversion.

What we find funny, is that you have not conceded a single point, even though you are wrong about nearly everything. You don't even sound like you are trying to see things from someone else's POV. Most of the atheists here have been Christians, so have no need to see any more of it. You, claiming you have been an atheist does not match, because dogs are atheists. It means nothing, whilst trying for a decade/s or so, to make sense of Christianity means a genuine attempt to see it from your POV.

To the bold statement: Seriously?

There is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism means that you have never heard of the concept of God, so you are an implicit atheist. An explicit atheist is someone who heard about the concept of God, and decided they don't believe it.

A dog would be an implicit atheist, certainly not an explicit atheist like you guys on this website. So you and a dog are not the same kind of atheist. The dog is ignorant, humans are not.

Besides, how do you know animals are atheist and don't pray in their own way to the Supreme King of the universe?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

An explicit atheist is someone who heard about the concept of God, and decided they don't believe it.

A dog would be an implicit atheist, certainly not an explicit atheist like you guys on this website. So you and a dog are not the same kind of atheist. The dog is ignorant, humans are not.

'

How do you know humans are not ignorant? This is just another assumption in the long line of assumptions you've made.

Now, you cannot "decide" to believe (or not to believe) something. Belief is not a choice. Believing comes from being convinced (by either good reasons or bad). So your assertion about 'deciding' not to believe in a god is nonsense.

Besides, how do you know animals are atheist and don't pray in their own way to the Supreme King of the universe?

The burden of proof is on you, not us. And we don't simply believe such things prior to having evidence. So this "you can't prove it doesn't happen" is a fallacy - called shifting the burden of proof. Once again, you are using irrational arguments.